High Chief Ikechi Emenike & Ors v. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & Ors (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The 1st appellant as petitioner was sponsored by his party, the 2nd appellant and petitioner, All Progressive Congress (APC), to contest the Governorship Election of Abia State held on the 18th day of March, 2023.

The 1st respondent, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), conducted the election.

The 2nd respondent, Labour Party, sponsored its candidate, the 3rd respondent, Dr. Alex Chioma Otti. The 4th respondent, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), sponsored its candidate, the 5th respondent, Ambrose Okechukwu Ahiwe, while the 6th respondent, Young Progressive Party (YPP), sponsored its candidate, the 7th respondent, Hon. Enyinaya Nwafor.

There were fifteen (15) other political parties and their respective candidates that also participated in the election of 18th day of March, 2023. At the conclusion of the Election, the 1st respondent (INEC) returned the 3rd respondent as duly elected with majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

The appellants, who came 4th in the election with 24,091 votes, felt aggrieved with the declaration of the 3rd respondent as winner of the election by the 1st respondent and challenged the declaration by filing a petition at the registry of the tribunal on the 11th day of April, 2023, on two grounds.

The hearing of the petition started on the 25th day of July, 2023, with the Petitioners calling three witnesses, two of whom were subpoenaed witnesses. The 1st respondent did not call any witness. The 2nd and 3rd respondents called only one witness, so also the 4th and 5th respondents.

The 6th and 7th respondents did not call any witness to testify. The tribunal delivered its judgments on the 6th day of October, 2023, where it upheld the objections of the respondents that it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into nomination and memberships of the 2nd respondent and that the petitioners/appellants lacked the locus standi to challenge same.

It equally held that the appellants failed to prove their second ground of the petition to wit: that the 3rd respondent was not elected with majority of lawful votes cast at the Governorship Election held on the 18th day of March, 2023, having failed to lead evidence on same.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal after on the 15th day of November, 2023, delivered its decision on the 2nd December, 2023, dismissing the appeal and awarding 1,000,000 against the appellants. Still dissatisfied, the appellants have approached this Court on appeal.

In accordance with practice direction of this court, the parties have exchanged their briefs of arguments with the replies thereof. Abubakar Malami, SAN, the leading learned silk to the appellants, filed the brief of argument on 24/12/2023, distilled these issues for determination:

1. Was the lower court’s treatment of appellants’ appeal on the Threshold issue of Competence that is, locus standi correct?
2. Did the Court of Appeal rightly endorse the trial tribunals finding that the 1st, 6th and 7th respondents did not abandon their pleadings by not calling evidence?
3. Did the Court of Appeal rightly endorse the trial tribunal’s rejection of exhibits PM and PM A on the grounds that these exhibits had been “dumped” on the trial tribunal?
4. Was the Court of Appeal right to conclude that the petitioners did not establish that the 3rd, 3th and 7th respondents were not qualified, to contest the election of 18/3/2023, under reference in this case?

Mrs. J. O. Adesina, SAN, leading the 1st respondent’s legal team, filed their brief of argument on 5/1/2024, wherein these issues were nominated for determination of this appeal:

1. Was the lower court right to have declined and ignored the four interlocutory appeals referring to them as cosmetics in spite of the holdings therein?
2. Was the lower court right to have upheld the decision of the tribunal that the 1st, 6th and 7th respondents did not abandon their pleadings?
3. Was the lower court right to have affirmed the decision of the tribunal rejecting exhibit P14 and P14A on the ground of same having been dumped on the trial tribunal?
4. Was the lower court right to have affirmed the decision of trial court that the petitioners did not establish that the 3rd, 5th and 7th respondents were not qualified to contest the Governorship election of Abia State held on 18th March, 2023.

Dr. Onyechi, Ikpeazu, SAN, leading the 2nd respondents lawyers, filed the brief on 30/12/2023, and distilled these issues:

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the striking out of portions of the pleadings of the appellant by the tribunal was not fatal to the case of the appellants, as it was not the basis on which the petition was dismissed.
2. Whether having regard to the fact that the 1st, 6th and 7th respondents elicited evidence in cross-examination and the 1st respondent additionally tendered exhibits D1 and D2, the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the 1st, 6th and 7th respondents did not abandon their pleadings.
3. Whether having regard to the fact that exhibits 14 and 14A were tendered from the Bar and that PW2 and PW3 who identified them did not adopt competent witness statements, the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the decision of the tribunal to the effect that the exhibits 14 and 14A were dumped on the tribunal.
4. Whether having regard to pleadings and the evidence led, the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the decision of the tribunal to the effect that the appellants failed to prove that the 3rd, 5th and 7th respondents were not qualified to contest the election for the office of the Governor of Abia State.

A. J. Owonikoko, SAN, with his team of counsels for the 3rd respondent, on 5/1/2024 filed his brief of argument and therein formulated these issues: